Sunday, February 03, 2008

Super Stalemate?

Super Tuesday was supposed to settle it all. The latest batch of polls gives the impression that the "national primary" might be more of a Super Stalemate for the Democrats. With delegates awarded by proportion of the vote, it's hard to see a commanding frontrunner.

Here are the most recent results for many states:

California (Zogby Feb 2):

Obama 45%Clinton 41%

This is the first poll to show Obama ahead in California, and it tends to confirm what the Clinton camp has privately acknowledged, California is tightening.

New Jersey (Zogby Feb 2):

Clinton 43%Obama 42%

Georgia (Zogby Feb 2/Mason-Dixon Feb 1:

Obama 48%Clinton 28%

Obama 47%Clinton 41%

Alabama (Survey Jan 31):

Clinton 47%Obama 47%

Missouri(Zogby Feb 2/Mason-Dixon Feb 1)

Clinton 44%Obama 43%

Clinton 47%Obama 41%

Connecticut (Survey Jan 31):

Obama 48%Clinton 44%

Arizona(Mason-Dixon Feb 1):

Clinton 43%Obama 41%

Colorado and Minnesota also look like close contests.

Obama has a massive lead in his home state of Illinois, Clinton a large, but not as decisive lead in New York. These two states could cancel each other out delegate wise.

A couple other state, where Clinton has a large lead, but basically there is a realistic scenario where Super Tuesday settles nothing. All things being equal, Clinton will probably get more delegates, but not enough to to appear inevitable. Should Obama take California, the psychology of that victory may reset the entire race. Interesting article here that outlines why time might be on Obama's side.

Also, there is a new, well respected, national poll released today, confirming a very tight race:

Days before nearly half the country votes in the Super Tuesday primaries, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are locked in a tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination, their competing themes of experience vs. change now precisely dividing their party.

20 comments:

Unless he's within 100 delegates, he cant' catch her and it's looking like he would be lucky to come with in 300 delegates.

Zogby btw is ridiculously biased against Clinton and is the only polster that I would say does so intentionally. The man's personal profile explains it.

Keep in mind estimates are that half of California has already voted. There is I believe 7 states that have been voting for over two weeks and 9 of the 22 states are closed to only people who registered as Democrats several weeks ago.

I find Pollster to be outdated, their charts weight older polls, as a result they don't tend to respond well to late moves. I prefer the RealClear charts, because in a fluid race, two week old polls are an eternity.

Zogby is biased against Clinton. You constantly amaze me, a Clinton stooge, with no grasp of reality.

Steve, this is one time where I am a bit curious about your choice of posting this. You had just scolded someone yesterday about not cherry-picking polls yet most of these polls are the outliers of all the others.

But then I remembered New Hampshire ; ).

Still, it seems like this needs a bit of context . . . reminds me a bit of the kind of coverage on the major networks when they start itching for a horse-race so much they almost begin programming / pushing for it.

alright, that's fair . . . it was just my observation. I enjoy your posts a lot, as you can tell.

Look forward to seeing the posts released a bit later today, if you have time, I'm sure they'll be others.

I have often been curious how public opinion shifts over weekends just prior to elections. I know that some people work all weekend, but I am always curious on these last weekends before any vote how people process and make decisions when they can interact with friends, catch up on reading, and just think. It may not be significant, but its made me curious of all the trends that sometimes seem to shift or exacerbate over the weekend.

That may not be what we're seeing here, but who knows. Tuesday will be interesting.

I caught a couple of the American Sunday programs. It was mentioned more than once, that if Obama somehow manages to win California, delegates aside, it would provide powerful momentum moving forward. Can't say I necessarily disagree, it was only recently Clinton had a commanding lead. If the delegate race is reasonably close, then optics might make the difference, and California is the big prize.

Just a quick point on Pollster vs RealClear. I usually look at the individual polls myself, but both provide charts. If you look at Pollster today, their chart has Clinton plus 10.4 in California. By contrast, RealClear has it Clinton plus 2.5. Everyone agrees the gap has closed in recent days. Pollster seems quite slow to factor out older polling, while RealClear better weights recent findings.

I doubt that on the Democrat side either Clinton or Obama will decisively take Super Tuesday. Clinton probably has a slight lead, although if Obama picks up California (considering how many delegates it has) that could change things.

Your insults prove you are not even worthy of having a discussion with.

Pollster.com includes all polls, not just some, as real clear politics and is completely neutral, unlike real clear politics.

It also discusses possible bias brought about by different polling methods from different companies.

Clinton is polling 10% higher among automated polling firms?

What does that mean? Try not to be insulting. We'll give you a sticker if you can do it.

The latest poll of California for example shows Obama with a 1% lead in the state. However if you read the stats for the poll, The SF bay area accounts for 26.7% of respondants. This area has a population of 4 million. The Los Angelas area accounts for 26.9% respondants. This area has a population of 18 million.

This poll also has 25% independents, unlikely. And more disturbing 8% hispanic respondants eventhough they make up 25% of the voters in the state.

Is this poll deliberately skewing to Obama, you bet.

It's total garbage.

Adjust the numbers just for population in Los Angeles vs San Francisco and Clinton would be way ahead.

But you really are so superior with your childish name calling. Just dont pretend you know how to read polls, when you don't.

I'm actually wondering if you lie are you just can't read charts either. None of the polls included in the chart on pollster.com of Feb 5th states, all of which are after Jan 8th, 2008, are not included in the Real clear politics averages.

You're a joke, seriously. Any medium that doesn't fit into your Hillary BIAS is slanted, lies, doesn't tell the whole story. RCP just puts up the polls, they don't make up the numbers, so your accusations are simply ASTOUNDING.

BTW, this is the last time I respond to your comments, they are utter nonsense. BTW II, how did that Clinton surge in SC work out for you??? LOL.

It would be nice if he could win California. Even though he is ahead in regional polls, all those old farts who use absentee ballots and are scared of a non-baby boomer potentially taking power may tip the vote towards Billary.

The same thing happened in Florida.

With that being said, Obama has all the momentum and you can bet all the super delegates who more then likely would have gone to the Clinton's are taking note. Otherwise they choose to ignore the grassroots at their peril.